Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stryker vehicle controversy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to Stryker. seems the general opinion is to merge  DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Stryker vehicle controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No articles currently link to this article. Controversy section on Stryker article has been removed. I would like to see this moved to Stryker design or just deleted. Marcus  Qwertyus   21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to voice my strong opposition to the deletion of the article in question. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - The page is just a series of tit-for-tat arguments and rebuttals and serves more to create controversy than discuss any supposed controversy that may have existed around the time of the vehicle's purchase. It's not encyclopedic, it's a forum debate turned into an article.  I don't even see that the article established that there was an actual 'controversy' to begin with beyond that the vehicle offends a certain group of people. - Jonathon A H (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've re-established the link on the main Stryker page. That link has a valid reason to exist while this page exists. However, I still support a discussion on whether or not this page should be deleted.Vstr (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: This seems to be a WP:POVFORK. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment this article has gone through AfD atleast once before. Articles for deletion/Stryker Vehicle Controversy. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is very large, so it isn't a POVFORK, rather a SIZE fork. As the Stryker had a lot of controversy when it was introduced, and alot of Congressional debates took place on it, I fail to see why a controversy section or article is not in order, as it is a fact that it generated alot of controversy. If you say that there is no controversy now, that is not the case, and even if it were, that does not mean there was never controversy. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to something or stubify This has way to many unsourced claims thus suggesting some sort of bias in how the article was approached. However, that being said, it is certainly a valid Encyclopedic topic per IP 76 there, Sadads (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Stryker. I was kinda on the fence about this one, as both sides seem to have compelling arguments. However, a look at the references seems to only confirm that there are some criticisms of the platform (which is the case every time the military buys anything, even a toilet seat), and not a genuine controversy. The article currently seems structured to make much ado about nothing, and the name seems to generate a false sense of history in the opposition to the program. That's why I view this article as a POV fork currently. That said, there is a lot of worthy data there, especially the technical info, and could easily be integrated into the main article, especially the Design section.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Stryker per bahamut0013. WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 19:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In reference to merging: Much of the information in the Stryker vehicle controversy article can already be found, in one form or another, in the Stryker article as it exists now. After redundant information is removed, will their really be enough to merit an actual merger?  Look at the actual amount of cited information - very little of which has anything to do with the so-called controversy, and more to do with the vehicle's capabilities, shortcomings, and comparisons to other vehicles - most of which are already integrated into the Stryker article.  The rest of the article boils down to unsupported POV back and forth, and what would appear to be original research.  I have to ask... what would be left over for a merger?  One or two sentences?  A couple of references? Please compare to the existing Stryker article before considering a merger. What merits inclusion that hasn't already been included? - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Counter-Comment I can easily see two solid sections created from this page that's not already on the Stryker page. First, (without POV) there's the competition with the M113. The GAO addressed UDLP's protest, and then they compared the two vehicles after the Stryker was fielded. The second section would cover the air transportability of the Stryker. The GAO provided two additional reports covering that topic - the C130 requirement, and the 4-day Brigade deployment requirement. All four of these reports are worthy of entry into Wikipedia and are NPOV.Vstr (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete this content fork. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge While this entire article will survive the merger, there is plenty of information that still should be included.Vstr (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per bahamut0013 and Vstr. WikiCopter (radio &bull; sorties &bull;  images &bull;  shot down) 04:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per bahamut0013 and Vstr.--Lan Di (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.